logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1985. 12. 24. 선고 85도1755 판결
[도로교통법위반][공1986.2.15.(770),358]
Main Issues

Duty of a motor vehicle operator to conduct a daily inspection on the brake system of the motor vehicle operator.

Summary of Judgment

A person who operates a motor vehicle has a duty of care to check whether there is no oil leakage in the brake pipe among the brakes, and the fixedness has to be checked every day before the operation begins.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 43 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, Article 44(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, Article 44(1)9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Vehicles Act

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No1072 delivered on July 10, 1985

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

Pursuant to Article 43 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, Article 44(1) of the Enforcement Rule, and attached Table 9 of the same Enforcement Rule, a person who operates an automobile has a duty of care to disclose oil to the brake pipe among the brake system as one of daily inspections prior to the commencement of the operation of the automobile every day. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below is justifiable in finding that the defendant did not conduct such daily inspections prior to the commencement of the operation of the automobile as stated in the judgment, and that the defendant was negligent in the judgment of the court of first instance. According to related evidence, the traffic accident in the first trial can be sufficiently recognized to have been caused by negligence not discovered prior to the commencement of the operation of the automobile, because it is not clear that the defendant neglected to perform the duty of daily inspection as mentioned above, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the traffic accident was caused by negligence not discovered prior to the operation of the automobile.

In the end, the appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju

arrow